Validate a draft against the real Vinted form

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explicitly stating 'It never clicks publish' and describing the browser interaction. This clarifies the safety boundary and what the tool actually does, though it doesn't disclose details like side effects on the draft or browser state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the critical safety guarantee ('It never clicks publish') is bolded. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains the core behavior and return nature ('reports whether it is ready to publish' and 'returned missing/warnings'), which is sufficient for a tool with no output schema. It does not cover failure modes or the screenshot parameter, but the overall usage context is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%; draftId has no schema description, but the description references 'from the draft', giving some context. The screenshot parameter has a schema description but is not mentioned in the tool description. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the undocumented draftId.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's specific function: it opens Vinted's new-listing form, fills it from the draft, and reports readiness. It distinguishes itself from publish_listing by explicitly stating 'It never clicks publish.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear usage context: 'run it before asking the user for permission to publish' and calls it 'the safe end-to-end check.' It does not name explicit alternative tools, but the timing and purpose are concrete, so this is clear context without formal exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.